INTRODUCTORY The City Council of the City
of Columbia, Missouri, met for a regular meeting at 7:40 p.m., on Monday
April 7, 1997, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The
roll was taken with the following results: Council members CAMPBELL,
KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, and CROCKETT were present. The
City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk, and various Department Heads were
also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular
meeting of March 17, 1997, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion
made by Mr. Campbell and a second by Ms. Coble.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA INCLUDING
CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hindman noted that
Report F would be added under Reports and Petitions. The agenda, as amended, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion made
by Ms. Coble and a second by Mr. Janku.

SPECIAL ITEMSA. Community skateboard
park report. Mr. Green noted that this
had been discussed previously and that a public hearing had been held regarding
the issue by the Parks and Recreation Commission. He explained that
the report gives some options if the Council desires to develop a skateboard
park. He said locations were also listed that might be considered. Mr.
Green noted that the report also mentioned the possibility of appointing
an ad hoc committee to work with the staff on developing a recommendation. Mr. Green reported possible
sites for a skateboard park were broken down into two categories: Properties
the City owns and properties the City does not own. City owned properties
mentioned were as follows: 1) the area behind the old Armory; 2) a location
in the Cosmo Recreation area; 3) Oakland Park; and 4) an existing parking
facility, including one of the ramps or garages. Non-City owned locations
were: 1) a couple of lots east of Columbia College (should the Council wish
to purchase); and 2) the area adjacent to Field School. Mr. Janku noted that the
report mentioned different options in terms of size or types of facilities. He
said one option had a cost of $350,000 with a 5 acre in-ground facility and
parking. He asked if there was a model for it somewhere else. Mr.
Green said there was one in Columbus, Ohio and they were in their second
year of operation. Mr. Janku asked if there was any city, comparable
to Columbia, that has something similar that could be used as a model. Mr.
Green was not aware of any organized skateboard park close to Columbia. He
said there was a facility in Kirkwood that was dismantled. Mr. Green
said there were some areas in St. Louis that are privately used for skateboard
purposes. Mr. Janku asked if there had been any discussion with the
University since the students would probably be frequent users. Mr.
Green said there had been discussions with the Recreation Director and the
comment received was that the University is trying to keep skateboarders
off of their property. Mr. Kruse asked if the alternatives
mentioned in the report were considered to be permanent locations or, if
in some cases, they were thought to be temporary locations until some more
permanent facility could be put together. Mr. Green said he thought
it could be either. In order to have any of the locations, there would
have to be some City expenditure to ensure that the park would be appropriate
or suitable. Mr. Green said a very smooth surface is needed and none
of the existing parking facilities, parks, or roadways would sufficiently
meet this requirement. For approximately $10,000, the Armory area could
be overlaid and fenced. Mr. Green said then if users wanted to construct
or purchase their own apparatus, that would be allowable. Literature
on commercial apparatus, half pipes, and obstacle courses has been obtained. Prices
for these items ranged from $15,000 to $50,000. Mr. Kruse said a constituent
suggested that one location for a temporary facility might be the old fairgrounds
in the horse show arena. He asked that this location be added to the
list, probably as a temporary location. Mr. Janku asked if the facilities
could be moved around. Mr. Green replied that it would not be impossible
to move them, but the equipment would need to be dismantled and put on the
back of a truck to be taken elsewhere. He said these items usually
range from six to eight feet high and 20 feet wide. The commercial
structures are made out of wood and the half pipe is lined with stainless
steel. Mayor Hindman thought the
Council should appoint an ad hoc committee. Ms. Coble felt there should
be people on the committee who would be consumers and others that have expressed
interest through the years. The consensus was that a committee should
not be hand-picked. Mayor Hindman suggested that the committee be advertised
so the Council could determine the interest, and then go from there. Mr. Campbell suggested that
the committee not limit their findings to just a public facility. He
asked that the committee consider a public/private partnership, how it might
be financed, as well as other aspects. Mayor Hindman noted that
before any official action is taken, public hearings would be held.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS None.

PUBLIC HEARINGSB76-97 Amending
Chapter 29 of the City Code relating to family day care homes. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that the
purpose of this amendment was to have provisions similar to those that exist
in the state regulations. Mr. Campbell said when he
requested that this issue be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission,
he asked that the issue of privacy fences (at the option of the adjacent
land owners) also be addressed. He asked why that had not been included
in the amendment. Mr. Bondra said the Planning and Zoning Commission
had discussed this at a work session along with the privacy fence issue. He
said one of the problems had been giving the neighbors the option of enforcing
the privacy fence. He said Mr. Boeckmann felt that would not be a workable
procedure. Mr. Bondra said his impression was that the Commission did
not feel the privacy fence was necessary. Mr. Boeckmann said it had
been a legal issue of delegation of authority. Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing. Mark Langworthy, 4412 Shoram
Court, spoke in support of the amendments. He has been very happy with
home day care for his children and was concerned that if the amendment was
not adopted, they would have to find other day care. He said the cost
would probably double. Mr. Langworthy explained that he is employed
by a local bank and noted that many of his fellow employees have their children
in home day care. He said a lot of those people would have to quit
their jobs because they could not afford the increased day care costs. He
did not think privacy fences should be required. Mary Bowen, 504 Hulen Drive,
a home day care provider, spoke in favor of the amendment. She felt
it would be in the community's best interest. In terms of the numbers of
children and the restrictions on the number of employees, Mr. Janku asked
Ms. Bowen if she was comfortable with the numbers. Ms. Bowen said she
felt comfortable with the numbers. Ms. Coble asked about the
Department of Health and the ratio standard. Ms. Bowen said the ratio
for ages two and up was one worker for ten children. Carrie Watson, 2506 N. Garth,
spoke in favor of the amendments. She felt that smaller groups were
better for her child. Laurie Menz, 1612 Jesse Lane,
mother of two daughters ages four and six, also spoke in favor of the bill. She
felt strongly about quality day care and as a psychologist, she was familiar
with the research on quality day care. She said it shows that it enhances
children's development in terms of social skills, cognitive development,
self esteem, and math skills. Ms. Menz said with home day care she
was hiring a person who could talk to her about her children and their development,
not an institution with changing staff members. Mr. Campbell asked how long
the average home day care center operated. He wanted to know if it
was something these people did while their children were growing up, or if
it was something they made a career out of. Carrie Watson said her
day care provider had been in the business for 15 years and waited until
her children were already in school before opening a day care. Lois Honeycutt, 628 Hunt
Ridge Drive, said that she and her husband both were employed by the University
and they had deliberately chosen home day care. She said their day
care provider had been in business eight years. Mrs. Honeycutt said
that her two children have a substitute family and they were together all
day, which would not be possible in a center with age divisions. Christa Stone, 1305 Fairview
Road, as a supervisor in a downtown business, said it was very difficult
to locate quality candidates because of the low unemployment rate in Columbia. Her
concern was the number of employee candidates would be decreased if mothers
were forced to stay home with their children. Mary Ann Pabst, 807 Spencer,
is an employee of the Child Care Connection. One of her duties is to
help parents find child care. She had a stack of petitions in support
of the changes to the ordinance. These were given to the City Clerk. Regarding
the longevity of providers, she said the average number of years they stay
in business is 11 years. Ms. Pabst said there were people at the Planning
and Zoning meeting that have been providing service for 20 plus years. Mr. Janku asked if the restriction
on the number of employees was too limiting. Ms. Pabst said the cost
for more than one full time equivalent employee would probably be prohibitive
to most of the providers she knows. Regarding privacy fences,
Mr. Campbell said complaints had been received three or four years ago about
the noise and sight of some day care centers. He said privacy fences
had been built at some of the day care centers to help alleviate these problems. He
asked if many of the home day care facilities had privacy fences. Ms.
Pabst said a phone survey had been conducted and it was her opinion that
of all the licensed day care providers in Columbia, about three already had
privacy fences. Most of those surveyed indicated it would be a financial
hardship to erect such a fence. A privacy fence would cost approximately
$2500. State regulations already require a chain link fence. Ms.
Pabst said about 30% of the licensed child care providers live in rental
homes and they asked about fencing under these circumstances. Connie Seymour, an employee
of Buckles and Bows, 1906 Rose Drive, spoke in support of the amendments. Kathy Wallace, 2905 Burrwood
Drive, explained that her employer was EduCare Columbia, an educational program
trying to raise the quality of care for home day care providers. She
spoke in favor of the amendment. In an effort to raise the professionalism
of day care providers, it was preferable for home day cares to be licensed
and to work within the regulations. She said if an agency exists that
sets standards following state regulations and the City of Columbia does
not replicate those standards, it lowers the respect for the licensing agency. Mayor Hindman closed the
public hearing. Mr. Campbell said he was
very much in favor of the bill. He said while privacy fencing would
be preferable, he would not support this issue because of the cost involved. Mrs. Crockett was concerned
about the fencing. She said there was a possibility of having day cares
with up to 13 children on both sides of a home. She was aware of the
great need for home day care providers and problems that would be experienced
by those people who rent and also take care of children. Because of
those reasons, Mrs. Crockett is in favor of amending the ordinance. Mrs.
Crockett said if the noise got too unbearable, there was always the noise
ordinance that could be enforced. Mr. Kruse said in his Ward
there are four rental homes in a row that are all being used as in-home day
care centers. He had received major complaints from adjacent property
owners. The landlord eventually installed a privacy fence along the
back property line and, when the fence was installed, the complaints ended. He
did not think the fence helped with the noise much, but thought the visibility
issue had been a part of it as well. Mr. Kruse did not feel the
Council should push the fencing issue, but said if a lot of complaints are
received, the issue should be reexamined. Mr. Kruse said home day cares
were not high revenue businesses, but as businesses they should be expected
to respect the rights of adjacent property owners. Mrs. Crockett asked if the
home day cares were required to have a business license. Mr. Beck said
they were not classified under the home occupations ordinance and they were
not required to have a business license. Mrs. Crockett asked why a
license was not required. Mr. Boeckmann said some home occupations
were required to be licensed and they were listed in the code. Mrs.
Crockett suggested that it be looked into. Mr. Janku asked in terms
of future activity, if the Council could at a later date require privacy
fencing or if this would be grandfathered in. Mr. Boeckmann said he
did not think it would be. Certain regulations could be imposed retroactively. Mr. Campbell said this
was a very necessary and important occupation and he thought the Council
should facilitate it. Mr. Janku thought the Council
could be more flexible with the number of employees, but if the operators
were comfortable with the language he would not propose an amendment. B76-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

R40-97 Approving
FY 1996 CDBG and HOME Performance Report. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck noted that this
was a required public hearing on the work that has been accomplished in the
City using Community Development Block Grant funds as well as HOME funds
during FY 1996. Mayor Hindman opened the
public hearing. There being no comments,
Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing. The vote on R40-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:

OLD BUSINESSB77-97 Authorizing
an agreement with the Highway and Transportation Commission for sidewalkconstruction
on Route B from Route 63 to Business Loop 70. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
would provide for the construction of sidewalks that would be built along
the east side of Route B from the 63 overpass to Business Loop 70 East. He
said the estimated cost had changed drastically from the original discussion. Costs
had been originally estimated at $60,000 and now had increased to $122,610.00. The
reasons for the increased cost was explained in the Council memo. Mr. Janku appreciated that
there would be a bridge at I-70. He asked if this would extend to or
past Business Loop 70. When coming from the north, Mr. Janku said one
also had to cross the Business Loop and there was no sidewalk. Mr.
Patterson said it would stop north of Business Loop 70. Sidewalks did
not extend all of the way to the bridge because the project ends at that
point. Mr. Patterson said staff also had a concern about it. Mr.
Janku asked if the City was to try to address this issue separately from
the project, whether the state would be supportive. Mr. Patterson said
he thought they would be, provided it was City money going in to it. Mayor Hindman asked how one
would get across Interstate 70. Mr. Patterson said a bridge was included
in the project. This was the additional cost for the separate sidewalk
over the new bridge. Mayor Hindman asked if he understood that the
new bridge would be built by the Highway Department and that it would have
a separate sidewalk on it. Mr. Patterson said that was correct. He
said this was staff's estimation of the additional cost. Mr. Patterson
said what the Council was doing tonight was actually entering into an agreement
for the entire sidewalk funding. Mayor Hindman asked if there would
be a new bridge on Business Loop 70. Mr. Patterson said there would
not, the project stops north of the Business Loop. Mr. Janku suggested that
at some point the City should obtain some information on what the state's
plans were for how the five lanes would terminate. Mr. Patterson said
staff had the designs and it was anticipated that quite a bit of the traffic
would be directed to the Business Loop. He said at some point staff
would have to address the Paris Road needs south of the project, but at this
time there were no funds for it. Mr. Patterson said staff would get
the drawings out and send them to the City Manager's office for the Council
to see. Mr. Beck said it looked to
him like the only other real ramp on to Paris Road, unless Paris Road becomes
a more severely used road, would be just south of the bridge. Mr. Janku said he would support
the ordinance because the project needed to be moved forward. He thought
eventually options should be explored for the bridge over Business Loop 70. Mr.
Janku said the usefulness of the expensive sidewalk would be lost if people
are deterred from using it because of the high volumes of traffic on such
a narrow bridge. B77-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

B78-97 Authorizing
land acquisition for the Route PP improvement project. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
was the continuation of work on the project that will extend about one-half
mile east of the US 63 connector. Mayor Hindman asked if this
included right-of-way for sidewalks. Mr. Patterson said a report had
gone to the Council last summer about the problems of getting this project
accelerated and the lack of desire on the part of the property owners in
the area. In order to keep this moving, staff indicated that they would
come back and do the grading within the right-of-way, but any additional
land necessary for sidewalks (sidewalks to be put in by donations of the
property owners) would not hold up the project. Mayor Hindman asked
if anything had been done about the sidewalks. Mr. Patterson said the
property owners had been contacted, but there had been no response from them. In
negotiations, the City indicated its willingness to pay for a sidewalk if
the property owners would donate the land for it. Mayor Hindman assumed
staff had not been overwhelmed by donations. Mr. Patterson said that
was a correct assumption. Mayor Hindman asked of the
status on sidewalks. Mr. Patterson said the City has the option of
changing its position of requiring donations of right-of-way for sidewalk
construction by enacting condemnation proceedings if the Council so wished. He
said staff was trying to separate the issues so as to not delay this project
because of the sidewalks. Mr. Patterson said that did not mean that
the options for constructing sidewalks were changing. At the time the
report was submitted to the Council, Mr. Patterson understood direction to
be to separate the projects. The City would attempt to get the right-of-way
donated by the residents and, if the homeowners did not agree to this, the
sidewalks would not be built. Mr. Campbell thought he remembered
a six figure amount for putting in the sidewalks. Mr. Patterson thought
the cost of sidewalks on one side of the street, assuming the grading was
done and the right-of-way was obtained, was about $35,000. He said
that did not include the cost of obtaining the right-of-way, just construction. Mrs. Crockett asked if the
City could tax bill the property owners for the sidewalk. In accordance
with policy, Mr. Patterson said it could be assessed if it was not on the
Master Sidewalk Plan. Mr. Beck was hopeful this
project would be underway this construction season, but he did not see it
moving very fast if the right-of-way had to be acquired. He understood
that if the Council interjected sidewalk right-of-way acquisition as part
of this project, it would have to go back through the Highway Department
review channels. Mr. Patterson said if the City included sidewalks
in this project, that was what would happen. Mr. Patterson said that
was why the projects had been attempted to be kept completely separate. Mrs. Crockett said this project
needed to be moved forward and sidewalks could be constructed at a later
date. Mayor Hindman guessed this was the only alternative, but it seemed
the City never was able to build sidewalks as part of a project. Mr. Beck noted that funds
for this project were being taken out of the ballot issue funds, but there
was not a great deal of money for sidewalks in the last ballot issue. He
said just doing Route B would literally take up miles in other parts of the
community where right-of-way exists. Mayor Hindman recognized
the problem and was not in favor of stopping the Route PP project because
of it. Had the residents really wanted sidewalks in the first place
and decided that this should be done as part of the project from the very
beginning, Mayor Hindman asked if it would have been cheaper in the long
run to have planned the sidewalks. Mr. Beck said the grading would
have been. However, if there were a lot of driveways and that sort
of thing constructed at a later date, it was not necessarily always the best
to build a sidewalk before the development occurs. As far as building
sidewalks, Mr. Beck said it would probably be cheaper to complete a project
all at once. He said when driveway approaches are constructed, the
sidewalk usually is not designed for the thickness needed to carry trucks
and the like. Mr. Campbell said oftentimes the problem is that the
projects are planned by the Highway Department and the City tries to insert
sidewalks after the fact. Mr. Janku thought Route
B was in a CDBG eligible area and staff may want to look there for funding
so options would be preserved in the rest of the community with the limited
sidewalk funds from the ballot issue. Mr. Janku originally thought
that the north side of the street was the best side for the sidewalk, but
acquiesced when the staff and Council decided otherwise. Mr. Janku
said if the south side home owners were going to be that resistant, he thought
staff should look at the other side of the street to see if land acquisition
would be cheaper and quicker. Mrs. Crockett said the City
was in dire need of roads in this area and asked that nothing be done to
keep this project from being built. B78-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B79-97 Calling
for bids for street construction on Silvey Street from West Broadway
to WorleyStreet. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck noted that the estimated
cost for this project was $468,000, with a large part coming from the one-quarter
percent sales tax. He said the tax bill rate would be approximately
$10.25 per abutting foot. Mr. Beck stated the project would extend
the new roadway from Broadway to Worley. B79-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B80-97 Confirming
the contract for storm drainage construction and improvements in the
JacksonStreet
area, and appropriating funds. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck commented that nine
bids had been received on this particular project. The low bid of Aplex,
Inc. from Linn, Missouri, of $59,403 was being recommended. Mrs. Crockett asked if the
City had worked with this company before. Mr. Patterson said this company
had been doing work in the area and staff has not experienced any problems
with them. B80-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B81-97 Confirming
the contract for construction of the 4th and Cherry Streets parking
lot, andappropriating
funds. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck commented that the
low bid had been Richardson and Bass Construction Company for asphaltic concrete
pavement in the amount of $59,467. Ms. Coble said she had been
asked what types of public amenities there would be, either in this particular
lot or in the plans for the Sixth and Cherry parking structure. Mr.
Beck said there would be none in this metered lot. B81-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B82-97 Confirming
the contract for construction of the 6th and Cherry Streets parking
structure,and
appropriating funds. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck said very good bids
had also been received on this project, five in all. The low bid of
the Paric Corporation in the amount of $3,748,800 was being recommended. Mr.
Beck noted that the architect has had experience with this company. The
parking structure would provide 381 parking spaces and would be paid for
by parking utility funds. Mrs. Crockett asked if this
parking garage would have the same type of metered situation as the one on
Tenth. Mr. Patterson said it would have a single pay system which is
similar, but this structure will have coin changing capabilities. Mrs.
Crockett had heard complaints about the Tenth and Cherry parking structure
and was happy to see the instructions regarding the payment method included
with her utility bill. She suggested doing that several more times
throughout the year to familiarize users with the method. Mr. Patterson
said staff would continue efforts to make it more user friendly. B82-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B83-97 Appropriating
funds to purchase phone equipment for the new fire station. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
purchase would provide a direct connection between the City building and
the new fire station. B83-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

B84-97 Appropriating
funds to develop a City web site on the Internet. The bill was given second
reading by the Clerk. Mr. Beck said this was the
program the Council discussed with the staff during the last budget hearings. He
said funds had been set aside to develop this Internet program. Mr. Janku asked if the annual
recurring costs were something that would be divided between the various
departments. Mr. Beck said it was budgeted in an internal revolving
account and could be pro-rated. Mayor Hindman said several
citizens had asked him for the opportunity to have some input into the design
of the page. He asked if staff was at that stage. Mr. Pope said
the Mayor had indicated he would supply him with a list of names. Mayor
Hindman said if staff was at that point, he would forward those names to
Mr. Pope. Mr. Coffman asked who the
City would be contracting with to develop the site and what the recurring
services would be. Mr. Pope said most of the work would be performed
by City staff, but the service provider would be MoreNet. Mr. Coffman
asked if the $16,000 would be used for monitoring or maintaining the site,
and if it would include regular updating. Mr. Pope said funds would
be used for monitoring and regular updating of the site in addition to the
T-1 facility. Mr. Coffman asked about the design. Mr. Pope explained
that several designs have been developed by his department. In addition,
there will be comments and suggestions received from the people the Mayor
spoke of earlier who also wanted to have input into the design. Mr.
Pope said staff will meet with those folks and look at options. Mayor Hindman asked that
anyone wanting to participate to contact him. Mr. Campbell said he
would also like to have an opportunity to review the site. Mr. Janku said it was great
to have input, but his sense was that staff was ready to move forward and
the Council should not hold things back. B84-97 was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE,
COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill
declared enacted, reading as follows:

CONSENT AGENDA The following bill was given
second reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.

B75-97 Approving
the final plat of Thessalia, Plat 1.R41-97 Setting
public hearing regarding tax billing for improvements to Sanitary Sewer District
No.143
(Smiley Lane West).R42-97 Setting
public hearing regarding tax billing for improvements to Sanitary Sewer District
No.147
(Smiley Lane East).R43-97 Setting
a public hearing regarding landscape work on land north of the Daniel BooneBuilding.R44-97 Setting
public hearing regarding improvements to parking lots at Nifong Park.

The bill was given third
reading and the resolutions read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING
YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING
NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted and resolutions declared
adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESSR45-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Boone Electric Cooperative to provide underground cablelocating
services. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck noted that Mr. Malon
worked on this program with Mr. Alderson of Boone Electric Cooperative. He
said it was felt this would help the customers in both jurisdictions. Boone
Electric would reimburse the City for doing underground locating within six
miles of the central part of the City. Mr. Beck reported there were
a series of this kind of program staff was working on with different agencies
around Columbia. The vote on R45-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:

R46-97 Approving
the preliminary plat of Scottswood. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck noted that this
proposed 27-acre plat had been recommended for approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. He said that 79, R-1 lots were shown on the plat. Mr. Campbell noted that there
was no connection shown to the commercial shopping area in terms of walkways
or automobile traffic. He asked if that was usual policy. Mr.
Bondra said in this case the developer had not stubbed any streets into the
commercial area. Mr. Bondra said he had heard Mr. Hancock say that
the owners were not entirely sure what they were going to do with the remainder
of this property, which is presently zoned C-P. He said it was possible
the City could receive a request for a change in zoning. Mayor Hindman noted that
there were many cul-de-sacs. He was concerned that there did not appear
to be any pedestrian access from the cul-de-sacs to Scott Boulevard. Mayor
Hindman asked if this had been discussed with the developer in that the Council
passed a resolution encouraging vehicular and pedestrian connections. He
said since that suggestion had been made, the Mayor thought there had been
only one developer to follow those guidelines. Mr. Patterson explained that
he had been in a meeting with Mr. Hancock and the developer of the property,
and Mr. Hancock did specifically ask about both vehicular and pedestrian
connections. He said the developer's response had been that due to
the grade differentials, it would be necessary to grade the commercial area
where it could be usable for development. Mr. Patterson said staff
requested that pedestrian access be considered, but it was not shown. Mr. Campbell had considerable
difficulty accepting this explanation and approving this particular layout
without some comprehensive plan. He said if the developer was going
to make this plat a residential area that would be fine, but if so, there
should be access shown. Mr. Campbell said if it was going to be a neighborhood
commercial development, he felt it should be tied into the development process. Mr. Janku said he had reviewed
the minutes where the Council approved the C-P zoning, and the issue of access
from the residential area to the commercial area had been brought up at that
time. He said it was hard to speak for seven members, but thought it
was the Council's intention that one reason the planned commercial zoning
for this area had been approved was the idea there would be some type of
access to the residential area. At that time, Mr. Janku thought the
regulations prohibited pathways between residential and commercial areas,
but since that time it had been repealed. Mr. Kruse suggested that
the Council may be at the point where pathways should be required. He
was not sure voluntary compliance was being attempted. He recalled
this rezoning clearly and said the Council urged increasing the numbers of
acres to be rezoned to C-P because they were very interested in the notion
of having a neighborhood commercial development in this area. Mr. Kruse
did not think it made any sense to not connect it in some way. Mayor Hindman agreed. He
said this was not good for school children or people who want to take the
bus. He said the City tries to provide a public transportation system,
but developments like this discourage people from using such because it is
not accessible. He thought this was an extreme use of cul-de-sacs and
said the Council should do what they could to ameliorate the situation. Mayor
Hindman said he could not support the request. Mr. Kruse thought the concern
developers had was giving up a lot or two. Mayor Hindman said the City
should make sure that developers are not penalized for allowing access. Mr. Patterson said since
this was a preliminary plat, the Council would have the option of putting
a condition on it regarding the accesses rather than denial of it. He
said the Council could stipulate the number of pedestrian or vehicle accesses. Mr. Campbell said if the
Council directed that vehicular access be provided to the new area, that
would require some replatting. In addition, the number of walkways
the Council was contemplating would also require some adjustment of the lot
lines. Mrs. Crockett said if there
was not an ordinance in effect saying that there had to be a walkway to a
commercial area, she did not see how the Council could deny this request. Mr.
Boeckmann said frequently when the Council sees a plat they do not like,
they have worked with the developer to see if they could get what they do
like. Mr. Campbell pointed out that there was a policy in effect requiring
circulation. He said if the developer was considering rezoning, the
Council could require circulation between the various elements. Mayor
Hindman said the developer was not requesting a change in zoning at this
point. Mr. Campbell said that was true, but Mr. Bondra had mentioned
that the developer did not know what they were going to do. Regardless,
Mr. Campbell thought it was feasible for the Council to ask for circulation. There was a discussion about
denying the plat or tabling it. Mrs. Crockett suggested that the Council
table it and let the developer know their feelings so it could be worked
out. The Mayor said he would be willing to do that. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that R46-97 be tabled to the April 21, 1997 meeting. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Crockett and approved unanimously by voice vote.

R47-97 Approving
the preliminary plat for a replat of Lot 5 of Columbia Industrial DevelopmentCorporation. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck explained that this
was a proposed industrial subdivision on the east side of Brown Station Road
south of Waco. This almost 30 acre tract has been recommended for approval
by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Beck said it would provide
for seven M-C and M-1 zoned lots. Upon her request, Mr. Campbell
made the motion that Mrs. Crockett be allowed to abstain from voting on R47-97. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Coble and approved unanimously by voice vote. The vote on R47-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSTAINING: CROCKETT. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R48-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Boone County to make traffic counts in the Columbiametropolitan
area. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mayor Hindman noted that
the Council had been given a substitute for Exhibit A. He said it was
a shorter list than the original one. Ms. Coble made the motion
that R48-97 be amended by substituting the new Exhibit A for the original. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell and approved unanimously by voice vote. Mr. Beck said this agreement
would authorize traffic counts in the Columbia metro area. He said
it had been reviewed and recommended by the Columbia Transportation Coordinating
Committee. The vote on R48-97, as amended,
was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R49-97 Approving
charter of Bedford Walk Neighborhood Association. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck noted that this
sizable neighborhood was located in the Bethel, Nifong, and Southampton area. Mr. Kruse said he was glad
to see this request. The vote on R49-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:

R50-97 Authorizing
application to Missouri Department of Conservation for the "Branch
OutMissouri" program. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck noted that this
application was for tree planting and said that the City would provide the
40% match for the program using force account labor. The estimated
project cost was $13,500. He said the planting would occur in Nifong,
Cosmo, and Rock Bridge Parks. Mr. Janku said the City was
pursuing Tree City USA designation. He reported if the City was close
to achieving that designation, an additional 10% match could be obtained. Mayor
Hindman said that had been one of the reasons the Council had appointed the
Tree Task Force. He asked if the application for this designation had
been sent to the appropriate agency. Mr. Green said a Citywide tree
plan was needed and he understood that was what the Task Force was working
on at the present time. Mr. Janku said the City would not be eligible
this year in that case. Mr. Janku understood the maximum share was
higher than $8,000. He asked why the full amount was not being requested. Mr.
Green said it was felt this was all his department could handle at this particular
time with the amount of equipment and staff on hand. Mayor Hindman
asked Mr. Green if he had checked with the Volunteer Coordinator. Mr.
Green said he had not. Mayor Hindman suggested that staff see if the
Volunteer Coordinator could make up the difference. Mr. Green said
he did not think these were the type of trees for which the Volunteer Coordinator
would be able to get too many volunteers. Mr. Green reported no matter
how many volunteers there were, there was only so much equipment and all
of his people would have to be on-site when the volunteers plant trees. Mrs. Crockett asked what
size the trees would be. Mr. Green said they would be 1 1/2 to 3 inches. Mayor
Hindman thought staff should try to get the volunteers. Mr. Janku noted that if private
contractors were used, the City could get an additional 10%. He suggested
that there be a combination of City staff, volunteers, and private industry
involved. Ms. Coble interjected that
as a person who writes grants all of the time, the Council would be asking
City staff to wait while these things are figured out with an approaching
deadline of April 30 for submission of a grant. She said this would
be $8,100 the City could get to plant trees. Ms. Coble stated if the
Council wants to develop and expand the use of volunteers, this should probably
be done without delaying a grant that is desirable. Mr. Campbell agreed with
Ms. Coble and suggested if the City could get volunteers to plant trees,
that would save some force account labor that could be used for something
else. Mr. Janku pointed out that
the resolution did not specifically mention an amount, but location. He
said if the Council went ahead and approved it, the grant application could
be prepared and if it reflected more than the amount mentioned in the memo,
he thought everyone would be happy. Mr. Janku said that would leave
the possibility of it being expanded during the remaining days in April. The vote on R50-97 was recorded
as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:

R51-97 Authorizing
grant applications to Missouri Department of Natural Resources to renovateOakland
Pool and for playground surfacing at Worley Street Park. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Green commented that
the Council should be aware that just because an application is made for
a grant, it did not necessarily mean that the City would want to accept it. Mr.
Green explained that this material is three to four times as expensive as
the material used at Cosmo Park. He said staff had bid this particular
material for that job, and it came back over four times more expensive than
the material that was used. He said if the City accepts the $5,000
grant and then has to pay $15,000 to complete the project, versus paying
$7,000 or $8,000 for materials similar to what was used for the Cosmo Park
project, it would be in the City's best interest to reject the grant. Mr.
Green stated staff would like to apply for the grant and then take bids on
the surface at Worley Street Park. Mayor Hindman said the Council
would count on the staff's good judgment. Mr. Campbell asked why the
City would even apply for a grant if it was possible it would not be accepted. Mr.
Green said one of the reasons was that staff did not know how much material
would be required. He said if $5,000 was almost enough to complete
the project, the City would accept the grant and then put in the small remainder. He
pointed out that the Council had urged staff to use recyclable materials
whenever possible. Mr. Green said that was another reason why staff
was applying for the grant, this was 100% recyclable material. Mr. Beck said there were
cities throughout the State of Missouri that are working with this material
on playgrounds. He thought the City should try it if it came in competitively
on a project of this size. Mr. Beck stated the City could see how it
works while also participating in the recycling program of tires. The vote on R51-97
was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN,
HINDMAN, COBLE, JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution
declared adopted, reading as follows:

R52-97 Designating
the Convention and Visitors Bureau as a tourism destination marketingorganization. The resolution was read by
the Clerk. Mr. Beck commented that this
was a technicality in that the City had to designate an agency in Columbia
to seek tourism funding. The vote on R52-97 was recorded
as follows; VOTING YES: CAMPBELL, KRUSE, COFFMAN, HINDMAN, COBLE,
JANKU, CROCKETT. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared
adopted, reading as follows:

The following bills were
introduced by the Mayor, unless otherwise indicated, and all were given
first reading:

B85-97 Amending
Ch. 27 regarding water master meters.B86-97 Accepting
water utility conveyances.B87-97 Authorizing
acquisition of a water line easement on Route PP.B88-97 Authorizing
agreement with Public Water Supply District No. 2 to merge the District andCity
water systems.B89-97 Authorizing
an agreement with Horner & Shifrin for engineering services for improvementsto
Sunflower Street, and appropriating funds.Introduced by Janku.B90-97 Authorizing
landscape work on land north of the Daniel Boone Building using Cityemployees.B91-97 Appropriating
engineer's report and tax billing for improvements to Sanitary Sewer DistrictNo.
147 (Smiley Lane East).B92-97 Approving
engineer's report, Change Order No. 1 and tax billing for improvements toSanitary
Sewer District No. 143 (Smiley Lane West).B93-97 Establishing
Sanitary Sewer District No. 142 along Anthony Street between CollegeAvenue
and William Street.B94-97 Authorizing
land acquisition to construct Sanitary Sewer District No. 136 (Olive Street
area).B95-97 Appropriating
funds to upgrade the HVAC system at the automated flight service station
atthe
airport.B96-97 Appropriating
funds for Cultural Affairs staff to attend two conferences.B97-97 Approving
the final plat of Crossroads West, Plat 3.B98-97 Approving
the final plat of Sidra East.B99-97 Vacating
two public alleys near Elm and Hitt Streets.B100-97 Amending Chapter 9
and 16 regarding sale of fireworks.B101-97 Amending Chapter 18
regarding firefighter pensions.B102-97 Authorizing staff
to construct improvements to parking lots at Nifong Park.B103-97 Upgrading the corrections
nurse position.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS(A) East Campus rezoning
requests. Each year, according to a
policy resolution, Mr. Beck said that property owners in the East Campus
Neighborhood could bring in a rezoning request with the City paying the advertising
costs. He said this year five separate requests had been received. Three
requests were for rezoning from multiple family to single family and two
were requesting a down zoning from R-3 to R-2 (duplex). He said the
next step would be to refer the requests to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Hindman made the motion
that the requests be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(B) Street closure
requests. Mr. Beck said the first request
was from the Old Wheels Car Club for Sunday, October 5, 1997, and the second
from Stephens College for Sunday, May 11, 1997. Ms. Coble made the motion
that the requests be granted as written. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Kruse and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C) Dog running
areas. Mr. Green said staff and
the Parks and Recreation Commission had identified four areas it was felt
would be suitable for dog running areas. As noted in the report, he
said they believed that a successful area for this type of activity would
be one that is not populated by people. He said they had not selected
any neighborhood parks, athletic fields or the trails area. The four
areas were in the Grindstone Nature Area, the Bear Creek Nature Area, the
Hinkson Woods Natural History Area and the natural area west of Garth Avenue. Mr. Green reported that he
had received a few calls about the report, all of them commenting that it
was a very poor idea to have any areas in the City where dogs can be off
of a leash. Mr. Green reported one of these callers was a Board of
Health member. This person indicated the reason the Board recommended
the leash law was so that dogs off of their own property would be on a leash
at all times. This person also thought that more than one dog in an
area was a dog fight waiting to happen. He said this caller had asked
if this matter would be referred to the Board of Health for their recommendation
since they initiated the leash law. The Council consensus was
that it would not be sent to the Board of Health for their recommendation. Mayor Hindman proposed that
the Council ask staff to prepare an ordinance. He had a suggestion
for modifying it, but that could wait until the Council had the ordinance
to vote on. Mr. Campbell received a call
at his home and apparently the wording in the newspaper was not clear that
this area does not include the MKT Trail. He wanted it noted that this
would not include the Trail. Mayor Hindman asked if staff
checked with the Department of Conservation on the Hinkson Woods area as
it was a wildlife area. Mr. Green said contact had been made to inform
the Department of Conservation about the report and no objections have been
received. Mayor Hindman requested consideration of the fishing lake
at Twin Lakes with specific hours placed on it. He knew a lot of people
who took their water dogs to this area so they can swim. Mayor Hindman
stated one way to reduce conflict would be to allow dogs to be unleashed
in this area from dawn until approximately eight in the morning. Mr. Janku thought that had
been one of the areas mentioned early on as a possible considerations. He
asked if people accessed the lake from the non-trail side, whether then it
would be feasible. Mr. Campbell hoped that wildlife
experts would have a chance to react to this option because spawning fish
are disturbed by animals jumping into lakes during certain time periods. Mrs. Crockett asked if the
public used that lake to fish in. Mr. Green said they did. He
said there was also the largest shelter in the system adjacent to the lake. Mr.
Green stated that was the reason this area was not included because it would
allow for a mix of people and dogs. Mr. Kruse thought the areas
mentioned in the report were good suggestions and he would probably support
the Mayor's idea as well. He did not think it would be a problem to
include Rock Hill Park in the East Campus Neighborhood, and Oakwood Hills
Park in his neighborhood. Mr. Kruse said these were very rocky, rugged,
wooded areas. Mr. Janku requested the staff
evaluate an area in Cosmo Park as well. As there is a lake between
the softball fields and the soccer fields, people who like to be able to
get their dogs in water would have that opportunity. Mr. Janku said
it was almost completely fenced and relatively isolated from most people. Mr. Green reminded the Council
that the original ordinance had been introduced because of dogs attacking
people. He did not think there was a neighborhood park in town that
people did not frequent, and there was no place in town frequented more than
Cosmo Park. Mr. Green said staff could include in the ordinance whatever
the Council instructed. He reported the Health Department would be
enforcing the ordinance. Mr. Janku understood that
the dog would have to be under voice control. Mr. Campbell reiterated his
feelings about considering other species. He was concerned about dogs
disturbing nesting areas. Mayor Hindman suggested that
an ordinance be prepared, incorporating suggestions made tonight into the
list, and then amending it when it comes back for Council review. He
said the Council could also request that a wildlife expert look at other
species in those areas to be included in the ordinance. Mrs. Crockett said the staff
had done a great deal of work to get to this point. Her feeling was
that the Council should go with the four suggested sites to begin with and
then if it was found to not be enough, additional areas could be added by
amending the ordinance. Mr. Coffman agreed with Mrs.
Crockett's suggestion. He had some concern about the Rock Hill Trail
in his neighborhood. Ms. Coble made the motion
that the staff be directed to prepare an ordinance with the four sites included. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

(D) Intra-departmental
transfer of funds request. Report accepted.

(E) University banner
request. Mr. Beck noted that the initial
report indicated that this banner request would have to be referred to the
Planning and Zoning Commission. It had been determined that where there
is a campus plan, it would not need to be referred. Mr. Beck said the
report recommended that the Council direct staff to work on an electric pole
agreement with the University for putting up banners. Mr. Boeckmann noted that
the ordinance would allow the banners, but there was an issue involving the
City because some of the banners would be placed on City utility poles. He
said a pole attachment agreement is required and staff would need to negotiate
it with the University. Mr. Janku asked if maintenance
and upkeep requirements would be included in the agreement. Mr. Beck
said a note would be made to make sure that was included. Jeff Silen, offered to answer
any questions on behalf of the University. Mr. Kruse asked why the University
wanted to do this. Mr. Silen felt that it directly related to the educational
mission of the University. The intent is to provide a high level of
spirit and pride in the campus. He said a number of items were planned
in Brady Commons, as well as in the Union. Mr. Silen said the banners
would also compliment what is going in the Arts and Science Mall and Brady
Park. Regarding the maintenance issue, Mr. Silen said it had been brought
up when the University looked at funding the initial project. He said
the project was being funded through several departments on campus and they
planned an annual replacement of three to five years. He said the size
of the banners were approximately identical in size to the banners the City
has. Mr. Silen added that the hardware was the same. As a graduate of the University
of Missouri, a former participant in the Campus Planning Committee, a person
interested in signs, and a person who thinks the University Campus has become
probably the most beautiful historic place in Columbia, Mr. Kruse was not
really pleased with this idea. He agreed to some of the banners, but
this seemed to be a great deal of overkill. Mr. Kruse stated there
were 53 banners proposed in this area and, while there are already 27 on
Ninth Street and six or seven at Columbia College, this would almost double
the number of banners in the central Columbia area. He said there had
been a lot of banners hung in the gym which has triggered a lot of controversy. Mr.
Kruse said he could not support the request. Mayor Hindman said he was
in favor of granting the request. Mr. Campbell said while he
listened sympathetically to Mr. Kruse, he could remember a few years ago
when it was difficult to identify the University campus. He said perhaps
this was going too far, but thought there was a feeling that these monument
signs are unifying the campus. Mr. Campbell would like to see the University
try it. He said the banners would not be placed around the Quadrangle
or in the more historic parts of the campus. Mr. Campbell did not think
the banners would detract all that much. Mr. Janku had seen the University
come a long way in terms of landscaping and added that it was a very attractive
campus. He was willing to leave it to the University's internal planning
group. Mrs. Crockett agreed with
Mr. Kruse in that there were banners all over town and she felt the City
was beginning to get too many of them. On the other hand, as Columbia
College and the City of Columbia have banners, and the Council had apparently
approved 150 Growing with Columbia signs, Mrs. Crockett did not think the
Council should deny the request of the University at this point. Mr. Campbell made the motion
that the request be approved. The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman
and approved by voice vote.

(F) Tree cutting
for billboard visibility. Mr. Kruse said this report
had come about because of a request by Headrick Outdoor Advertising to remove
several trees on I-70 to improve the visibility of two of their billboards. He
had indicated to MODOT the Council's concern about the request and was advised
last Friday that this organization planned to issue the permits at some point
to have the trees cut down. He said the City had been provided with
two options to consider; one was to cut the trees this spring with no replanting
to be done, and the second was to cut the trees this fall and do the replanting
at that time. In a letter from the Department representative, it was
also indicated that they were currently waiting to see if Headrick Outdoor
would be willing to wait until fall. Mr. Kruse said he had argued that
with the Department, but to no avail. He wanted to offer a motion
that would be the sense of the Council on the issue. Mr. Kruse made the motion
that the following letter be sent to the Missouri Department of Transportation:

"The Columbia City Council opposes the
request by Headrick Outdoor to cut or trim trees, on the state right-of-way,
or trees planted with tax dollars under the Federal Highway and Missouri
Highway Beautification programs, for the sole purpose of improving billboard
visibility. However, if the Missouri Department of Transportation decides
to issue the permits to cut the trees, the Council's strong preference is
to delay issuance of the permits until the fall 1997 planting season so that
replanting can be scheduled with input of the Council and City Arborist and
Forester. It is further the strong preference of the Council that the
trees be pruned rather than removed."

The motion was seconded by
Mayor Hindman. Mayor Hindman commented that
the number of billboards between Columbia and St. Louis was embarrassing. He
said there had been a number of rather attractive plantings on Interstate 70
going through Columbia. He said Columbia had done quite a bit to make
the area attractive, yet it is still cluttered with billboards. Mayor
Hindman thought the City should have local control over them. He said
to cut down these beautiful trees so billboards could be seen better was just
terrible. Mr. Campbell suggested a statement
in the letter indicating that anything that had to be done, either through
cutting or pruning, be kept to an absolute minimum. In addition to the scenic aspect
of the trees, Mr. Janku said there also is an impact on screening the highway
for those nearby residents from sounds created by traffic. He thought
the City's input into the placement and types of trees planted was extremely
important because that would help reduce the impact from noise and air pollution. The motion made by Mr. Kruse,
seconded by Mayor Hindman, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None.

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND PUBLIC Mrs. Crockett commented that
she was happy about the improvements that would be made in north Columbia. She
said the City would be repairing Oakland Pool, in addition to the construction
on Route B, Brown Station Road, Route PP, and a stop light at Blue Ridge
and 763. Mr. Janku asked the staff
earlier for a report on the sidewalk across the Business Loop on Route B. He
indicated he would still like to have the information. He would also
like to receive information about the alignment. Ms. Coble said the Smithton
Valley Neighborhood Association had asked her about the use of City owned
vacant lots for community garden spots. The association was interested
in a lot on Clinton Street. She asked that the staff report back
to her so she could forward the information to the neighborhood group. Ms. Coble noted that parking
is allowed on both sides of Switzler Street. She has received complaints
about the street being too narrow, especially since that at the intersection
of LaSalle and Switzler it is apparently a great place to play for neighborhood
children. Ms. Coble asked if the staff could investigate what limiting
parking to one side would do in terms of the impact to Switzler. Mr.
Beck said staff would take a look at it. Mr. Beck had toured the Douglass
area with Ms. Chiles and observed some of the concerns that were mentioned
in addition to some street naming situations. A memo will be sent to
the Council regarding the situation. Ms. Coble noted that she
received two Xeroxed copies of color photographs of some very serious violations
of City Codes and ordinances with regard to dilapidated buildings, trash
piles, and abandoned buildings in the first ward. Mr. Beck said he
had the photos and would be reporting back on that issue as well. Mr. Janku reported he read
a newspaper article where Maryland Heights received a large federal grant
to work on creek erosion through the planting of various plants. He
passed the article to Mr. Beck and asked that the staff look into it to see
if Columbia might be eligible for any funding. Mr. Coffman noted that the
intersection of Audubon and Stadium had been a continuing topic of concern
during his campaign. He said both the residents on Shepard Boulevard
and in the East Pointe area would like to have a stop light at that location. He
said the homeowners had been told by the Department of Transportation that
there was still not a high enough traffic count to justify a light. Mr.
Coffman said with the recent news of some movie theaters going in, he thought
it was something that was inevitable and urged the staff to pursue it if
possible. Mr. Kruse said that the Grindstone
Rock Quarry Neighborhood Association had officially requested the scenic
roadway designation for Rock Quarry Road. They had asked him about
the possibility of this being a pilot project for others to follow, and that
the designation be one that would be done jointly by the Association and
the City. Mr. Kruse thought the ordinance provided that the nomination
could be made by a neighborhood association or a certain number of property
owners, or by the City Council. He asked what would need to be done
to pursue it as a joint project. Mr. Kruse stated one of the main issues
was the cost involved in the surveys and notifications. Mr. Beck said
he would report back on some of the estimated costs and the issues involved. Paul Albert, 2703 Parker,
spoke about pine tree illnesses and said these types of trees should not
be planted by the City. He suggested Bradford pear trees. Henry Lane, 1816 E. Broadway,
stated the City had begun 13 of the 30 projects covered on Proposition 2,
even though no bond money would be available for at least six months. He
also commented that he was no longer being charged for two trash receptacles,
trash bags, and a dumpster. He thanked the Council for voting in favor
of that bill. He also welcomed Council member Coffman and thanked Mr.
Harline for his past service on the Council. The meeting adjourned at
10:40 p.m. Respectfully
submitted,